traffic and the White House

So taxpayers and Utah drivers suffered this morning so that Condi and or Rummy could get to their political stunt on time. I was walking to court when I noticed that none of the lights on State Street had changed in quite some time. In fact, the various South's were jammed back with cars, trucks, buses, and TRAX all dutifly waiting for UDOT to escourt the two White House official most complicit (other than Cheney and Bush) in the utter disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, western Turkey, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, and of course their latest hit, Iran.

Why should the American people have to pay for politicans to give political speeches in the guise of policy? Why should states and local governments have to foot the bill for increased security when said politicans show up? Why can't the RNC or DNC or PACs pay for such nonsense? Because of the WH communications dept's ideas of salvaging their boss' political future rests on tired old rhetoric in front of favorable crowds in favorable cities, hundreds of cases were delayed or continued, hundreds of drivers were late to work, late delivering, late to classes, missed appointments, meetings, subpeonas.

And for what? What new did they say today that they haven't said a million times before? They should have just FedEx'ed a tape of an old speech, few would have noticed the difference.

Do-no-wrong Mayor

The Salt Lake Tribune conducted a Poll on the soccer deal. Guess who won: Corroon.

"Despite reversing course - Corroon argues the terms of the new deal are considerably more favorable - the mayor's approval rating has jumped to 72 percent, according to the new survey."

So even though 55% of Salt Lake County residents oppose the new soccer deal, more people approve of Carroon.

Voters have grown to trust Peter Carroon, they see him as an honest broker and a non-partisan who is looking out for them. And I must say, upon reviewing the new terms of the deal, the County comes out ahead. Appearantly, you don't try to play hardball with Carroon, because he wins.

I think we just might call him Governor or Senator in 2012 or so.

the definition of stupidity

"The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." — Albert Einstein

A new article in the Salt Lake Tribune lays this message out somewhat subtly.

Last year, President Bush came to Salt Lake for a older military veteran club conference, hoping to kick off a campaign that would rebound his support (at least amoung his conservative base) on the Iraq War and in general. Of course, Bush went down hill from there amoung all Americans and now somewhere between 55-60% of Americans disapprove of the course we are staying on in Iraq...and have done so for several months now. This was due in no small part to what happened the day after Bush spoke to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW): Katrina.

"That just dominated all other issues - local and national issues," Utah Republican Party Chairman Joe Cannon said. "There's no question that Katrina sucked the wind out of everything, including the president's views on Iraq.
"And that was the story for months."

It laid bare that Bush's cronyism, incompetance, and ideology over reality can directly hurt Americans back home too, and not just those who signed up to join the armed forces.

This year, the Bush White House is sending not just Bush, but Condi and Rummy to an American Legionniares conference in Salt Lake in an attempt to bail out his, and his party's, abismal approval ratings. Also this year, another storm looms in the Carribean threatening New Orleans, whose leeves are admittedly still not up to snuff.

At the time of Bush's last speech in Salt Lake City, about 38 percent of adults nationwide supported his handling of the war in Iraq, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll. This month, the same pollsters found just 30 percent of the country still felt confident in Bush's war leadership.

And yet, they try again to convince us with the same "cut and run" language that they are right and we--the majority--are wrong.

And although the majority of Utahns still support Bush because he is a religious conservative man who is in power, the rest of America is willing to give Democrats a shot at Congress. Were that 2006 were 2004, and Bush's days would truely be numbered. As it is, he will stubbornly hang around as investigations reveal the true disasterousness of his presidency.

My own view? Iraq may need to be divided into three states now, with UN/NATO peacekeepers squelching the violence as much as possible, a giant Yugoslavia of our own making. The US military cannot bomb our way into ending a civil war, we need Arab allies and other nations to go back into Iraq and try to create peace and stability, but none I fear will want to go. The Iraqis on some level don't trust us anymore, but we cannot leave them to their own devices...some sort of troops need to be there. Right now, Iraq and Afghanistan are failed states, breeding grounds for terrorists and extremists of all sorts. We can't let them stay that way.

In order to win this war that started on September 11, 2001, the people of the middle east need hope: hope that they can get a good paying job to support their family, hope that they can walk down the streets and go shopping without fearing death or pain, hope that life can get better, hope that their leaders are responsive to their needs, hope for peace and security. All these people have now is dispair.

This means creating a viable Palistinan state, complete with access to jobs, housing, and drinking water. This means ending corruption and cronyism in middle east countries. This means ending using hate and religion to keep the public distracted from a failure of governing. Of course this is a tall order, but Europe too was mired in nasty religious wars for centuries until the end of World War II. The creation of the EU, NATO, and the Warsaw Pact helped create peace, stability and economic growth. Now, a war in Europe is a laughable idea.

Oh and if you think things are terrible in the middle east now, wait until the oil really starts to run out.

Friday round-up

• Utah has so many divorces that they have an online divorce tool, which is pretty slick.


• Alabama Democrats tried to split the baby: the state party "disqualified an openly gay candidate for the Alabama Legislature and the woman she defeated in the primary runoff because both women violated a party rule that party officials said no other candidate has obeyed since 1988," but it failed. Why, because if the party disqualified Patricia Todd "for not filing a financial disclosure form with the party chairman it would also have to disqualify the party's nominee for governor, Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley, and for lieutenant governor, former Gov. Jim Folsom Jr."


• Utah's own Senator Macacca: St. Sen. Chris Buttars R-South Jordan.
  

  Buttars was responding to questions from reporter Tom Grover on Logan radio station KVNU-AM.
  Buttars plans to introduce a bill that would allow the Senate to remove a state judge from office at the end of the jurist's term if he and fellow senators took issue with the judge's rulings.
  When Grover mentioned that "courts are the way for those in the minority ... to ensure (their) rights are protected," Buttars responded with the following:
  "I don't understand that at all. You give me an example. I don't know of any example where the minority is being jeopardized by legislative action."
  When Grover mentioned the 1955 Brown v. Board of Education ruling as an example, Buttars said: "Well, I think Brown v. Board of Education is wrong to begin with. That's a whole other subject. Call me again and take a half-hour to talk about that."

  
  It gets better: The book that he cited to support his argument, says nothing of the sort.
  

  [Author Jay P.] Greene said Thursday that his book isn't about desegregation but about what he calls "common claims in education not supported by evidence. Nothing in the book discusses the affects of segregation or desegregation."

  
  
• Bush says there's no point “discussing the pros and cons of the war.” Why, because as long as he's President, we are staying there [unless Democrats take control of Congress]. This man is just begging Democrats to run a great campaign about Iraq, and then the laundry list of domestic woes. Iraq is the number one issue on voters minds. We don't need to do one of those "If was in the Congress in 2002..." voting questions, but say "Congress[wo]man/Senator X is enabling Bush's disasterous Iraq policy by not holding the administration accountable/responsbile for their errors." While you are at it, you can say "Congressman/Senator X voted for it over and over again, and I wouldn't have."

Have a happy and safe weekend. I think Saturday will be hike day for the wife and I. Recommendations for easy hikes near SLC are welcomed.

lede with understatement

This has got to be one of the funniest introductary clauses I have read in a long time:

Perhaps concerned that he is 40 points down in the polls, state Rep. LaVar Christensen is the first major candidate to jump into the TV advertisement wars this election season.
...he actually only bought one $3,200 spot on the Thursday night late news on KSL-TV, a television ad executive said. She said other local TV stations report Christensen bought a single ad on their late news, as well.

Just to give you an idea how little chance Christensen has, the last poll had him down 64-23 (in mid-July)...now sure that will narrow with ads, but here's another big problem. Matheson has about a million cash on hand, whereas Christensen has $100,000 in bank. Keep in mind, Christensen cut himself a $150,000 check...Matheson might pay for a tank of gas on his way to campaign event now and again, but that's about it. [FEC reports and breakdowns here]

This means that unless NRCC can pump in hundreds of thousands in a few weeks assuming it gets close. And the NRCC is already having to play defense on dozens of districts such that they aren't even playing offense in UT-02, a high-60s/low-70s percent Bush district in 2004.

This there isn't much room for LaVar to attack Jim:

Out of the 15 votes that Bishop bragged about to his constituents, Matheson voted with Bishop and the GOP majority 13 times.
...
Since entering Congress in 2001, Matheson has voted about 50 percent of the time in step with GOP President Bush's positions on legislative issues, reviews by Congressional Quarterly have shown.
"I don't keep score" on whether votes are for or against Republicans or Democrats," said Matheson. "I try to take each issue and vote how to represent my constituents in Utah."
...
A July survey shows that 75 percent of Matheson's constituents approve of the job he is doing. That's a very good rating.

That's a good line, and true from my experience interning for him. And I am obviously not the only one who likes and trusts him, in fact, he is the most popular member of the Utah delegation.

So Jim's seat is safe, although I doubt he will win 64-23.

campaigning for a job

The cliche line is that running for office, especially running for president, is like one long job interview. If that is true, man campaign are going to be tough.

Today I blasted through 4 motions in 6 hours (all of which rock thank you), raced up to Milcreek Canyon to have lunch with the division I used to clerk for at the DA's office.

There, I glad-handed each and every attorney I could manage in the time without looking like I was glad-handing. Plus, the chicken and side dishes were amazing, but quite a long drive. Up and down to park the car, then off to law school to glad hand again.

All your classmates will be your collegues soon. All will be able of giving you work. All your professors are your recommendations and graders. This year is a never ending job interview for dozens of jobs, most of which I won't get. But I will never know which I will get until I do...so the campaign trail never ends. Wish me luck and vote Oldenburg for employed.

George W. and Laura Bush crash my wedding...over a year late

I got this in the mail on Monday. At first, I thought it was a joke. Who from the White House would send a letter hand addressed to both me and my wife. It is not like I have friend or even acquaintance working there.

The postmark showed it was indeed sent off from the White House on August 18, 2006, exactly a year and two months from my wedding date.

So what gives? They certainly weren't sent an perfunctory invitation. And the New York Times article on our wedding my wife managed to get published came out the day after we tied the knot. It was pretty cool to pick up the Times in the Newark Airport on the way to our Honeymoon and see our names in it.

Any theories as to why much belated wedding wishes were sent out to Mr. and Mrs. Oldenburg? Third Ave'ers know that I have not been a fan of Bush since 1994, and not been a fan of his father's since the 1980 GOP convention when he flip flopped on "voodoo economics." Nor do I like Laura, who is complicit in her husband's failed presidency.

It was by far the funniest bit of junk mail I have ever recieved. I say junk because by definition, it was wholly unsolicited. Could a closet GOP relative be behind this? The whole thing boggles my mind. I will let this one slide, but if I get a Christmas Card from the Bush family, all bets are off.

end the snobbery

Take a break from the endless, mindless coverage of that wierdo who the media has decided killed the Ramsey girl. Do we really care what he ate on board? If only he got hit by a bus, the madness would end.

Anyway, when you go to a movie or think about going to a movie, do you ever read the New York Times movie review? I doubt it. Why? Because who cares what a bunch of elitist jerks think? Last night I watched Alfred Hitchcock's "Torn Curtain" starring Paul Newman and Julie Andrews (odd casting I know). That 1966 thriller wasn't perfect, but I enjoyed it. It obviously was not as good as the Hitchcock classics, but definitely better than anything that claims to be a thriller in the theaters this summer. Also, no real sex or gore.

That is the thing I like about old movies, and not because I am a prude. Older movies are more like books in that the violence and sex are left to your imagination, which can be even more exciting/scary than if you were to see every last drop like modern movies show.

But back to the point. So after the film I searched around for the review, and got this from 1966. Bosley Crowther, "America's foremost film critic for over a quarter of a century," wrote the review for the Times. Not only was it dripping with contemptuous sarcasm, he is unnecessarily horrible.



Here's a section that proves it was written in 1966:

His troubles are further compounded by the mildly romantic fact that his secretary, who also happens to be his fiancée, has stubbornly tagged along with him on his flight into East Germany, not knowing what he is up to, and embarrassingly gets in his way. In the manner of women, however, she's a help when they have to flee.

One of the last vestiges of New Yorker's superiority complex for the whole world to see is the Times movie review. I am trying to think of the last movie they liked. The point is never to enjoy a film but to find as much fault as possible, and say it with as much clever cruelty as possible.

You can almost picture Bosley smirking with each return of typewriter, DING! The film industry left New York City in the 1920s because movies could be filmed year round in the sun of Southern California. But the gloomy NYC haughtiness never left Gotham.

This is why I had trouble with the Times and New York long before 9/11 and the Iraq war. They just behave and believe they know better than the rest of us bumpkins. Bosley is currently embodied in A.O. Scott, who has never said a positive thing about a major Hollywood film to my memory. There is a reason people listen to Roger Ebert more than any other reviewer, and it is not because the Chicago Sun-Times is such a great paper (it isn't), it is because he has thoughtful, constructive things to say about most films. Sure he can slam a terrible SNL-alum film like the best of them, but he isn't universally nasty.

My favorite reporter the Grey Lady employs is Jennifer 8. Lee. That's right 8, as in eight. She decided that there were too many Asian ladies named Jennifer Lee, so to distinguish herself, she gave herself a numerical middle name. I wonder what the 8 is short for. She also knows how to party like the fictional women on "Sex and the City."

See you can have your “high class” without having to hate everything on God’s green Earth and come with a too-clever-by-half insulting line. I would like to dump the whole lot of them out in the wilderness and see how Nature enjoys their insecurity-based taunts.

requiem for the summer

Normally, I hate the summer. First, it's hot, so I sweat and get sunburned. Second, I don't see my friends from school as much. Third, I am not in school so there is less learning and more monotony. But this summer went by pretty fast. I saw many friends, visited my sister, remodeled my kitchen, and had interesting work.

Of course, there were dull and down times, like when a insect bite got infected and traveled up my arm, or when I was begging for a project at work. Next year I am sure will fly by, with all the applications, classes, and goodbyes. If I stay in Utah, I will see most of my classmates occasionally. But if I get some job out of state, all bets are off. Right now I am applying to the FEC, DOJ, scores of firms in Utah and the Baltimore-Washington area, as well as judicial clerkships and hoping for an opening to a job here at the DA's. I am also applying for a fellowship that would take me to Germany for a year to work in legislative, judicial, or executive branch (or the media or industry or private law firms), how cool is that?

School starts on Tuesday and on one hand I am glad to get back into it, and on the other, I am afraid of all the changes to come and would like to continue my life as is for a little longer. After all, it is comfortable. But I am excited to see everyone again, learn new things, and start a new phase in my life: as a working stiff.

I have given some thought to getting more education, but I think it is a pretty selfish move because it would be purely for self-enrichment and not for the sake of providing for my family to be. I like teaching and learning but I don't want to actually be a high school teacher...maybe a college professor, but those are extremely competitive.

Only a few days remain before responsibility kicks back in, but it was fun while it lasted.

Corrupt and idiotic to the core

Joe Cannon, Credit: AP.

Chris Cannon, Credit: endtheoccupation.org

Joe and Chris Cannon, brothers and major shareholders in ultra-poluting Geneva Steel, did another stupid and unethical thing.

"Three times this year, a lobbyist sought help from Rep. Christopher Cannon [(R-UT)] for his clients and got it. The lobbyist was the congressman's brother, Joseph Cannon.

"The Utah lawmaker acknowledges helping his brother's clients, including pressing Congress last month to intervene in a business dispute over an Internet contract estimated to be worth as much as $1.3 billion. . .

"Cannon has a financial interest in his brother's success: The lobbyist owes him more than $250,000, according to the lawmaker's financial disclosure reports."

Rep. Cannon denies the aid he gave his brother's clients was improper. "The rules really come down to disclosure," he told AP. "It's easy to make the connections you made between me and my brother."

Yes indeed it is easy, which is why the head of the state party shouldn't be related to a member of congress. Nor should a relative be a lobbyists, let alone a lobbyist to said relative. It gives, at the very least, an appearance of impropriety.

"If my wife decided to lobby, then we would probably say, 'No talking to my office.' I just don't see my brother in the same category," Cannon, R-Utah, told The Associated Press.

Do you really think that Haddassah Lieberman or Mrs. Tom Daschle are such sucessful lobbyists because they are good at it, or is it because their husbands were powerful Senators? Even worse are Curt Weldon's kids, whose company pretty much exclusively lobbies him and makes millions, or John Doolittle wife, who gets a cut of every dollar raised. Or Bill Richardson's family, who were paid hansomly in lieu of Dollar Bill himself until Bill discovered his freezer.

The Cannon boys take the cake. Chris is one of the most idiotic, vote in droves Republican out there. And his brother is a terrible chairman. In the reddest state in the union, he has yet to find a mildly appealling alternative to Jim Matheson.

Meanwhile, Orin "hypocrite" Hatch is pulling off his best Lieberman/Cheney Impression:

Hatch was quoted in Tuesday's Tooele Transcript Bulletin as saying Middle East terrorists are "waiting for the Democrats here to take control, let things cool off and then strike again."

BOO! Now vote for me. That is the GOP 2006 platform appearantly. Have you ever heard a dumber argument? Terrorism is thriving under the Bush Administration because of their terrible policies. I mean, bin Laden filmed a campaign video for Bush in the fall of 2004. They love Bush and his GOP accolytes because those morons drive recruitment.

Can't people in this state see through the utter lunacy and corruption that is the leadership of the Republican party, both nationally and in Utah?

What a difference Carroon makes

If Jim Matheson were ever to lose an election, I thought back in 2002 and 2004, Utah Democrats would be screwed. He was our last best hope. But now, I think we got another waiting in the wings, thanks in part to Howard Dean.



Dean's cousin, Peter Carroon, worked his butt off and got lucky in his 2004 race for Salt Lake County Mayor. But now, Carroon is one of the most popular politicans in the most populous county in Utah. He keeps making smart moves that make him appealing to those beyond his Avenues/9th and 9th base.

Even though a soccer stadium is going forward, Carroon showed that he isn't a push over, and doesn't like to waste taxpayer dollars. He got a big boost in popularity while taking on the Speaker of the House, Sandy's mayor, and other GOP big wigs. Instead of showing up to the cerimonial first shovel, Carrroon kept it real by being at his son's soccer game/practice.

Now he gets to use Rocky as a foil on the left. Salt Lake City's outgoing (thank goodness) mayor grandstanded...I mean protested against the war in Iraq by protesting the American Legion conference. American Legionniares are all old vets, I doubt any more than a handful of those there were in the Iraq war. And it probabbly offended a great many of them. So this year, Carroon will be the official greeter instead.

I think Peter has a decent chance to run for Governor or Senate one day. If I were him, I wouldn't go for the House. First though, get reelected by a big margin in 2008. Still, Utah Democrats now have a real bench. And if a decent Democrat gets elected mayor of Salt Lake City, then we might have another seat open up on the bench...behind the squeeky clean County Mayor.

Buttars than Erza

Utah's most demagogic State Senator is at it again:

Chris Buttars - the state senator who last session championed instruction on divine intervention and banning gay clubs at schools - now proposes giving him and his Senate colleagues the power to fire judges whose rulings they don't like.

Right now, our system is appointment by the Governor, confirmation by the Senate, and periodical retention votes by the public. Personally, I think our system is the best of all possibilities. Judges are mostly insulated from the public and will do what they believe is right under the law, but if they act very egregiously, the people can organize a campaign to oust them. Only a few have not been retained, and that was for truly biased decisions. I am sure if one of them got caught doing drugs or went insane, the voters would can those judges too.

Buttars, who I am sure never went to law school or read the Federalist Papers, said "That is the only way to make the public aware of some of these terrible decisions. ... I don't know where some of these decisions are coming from. Some judges just go in there and wing it." You don't know Senator because you don't understand that they go by statutes and the common law, not the Bible and/or Book of Mormon.

Richard Schwermer, assistant state court administrator, said Buttars' idea has constitutional problems.
"The (Utah State) Constitution says the governor has his role to play, in nominating. The Senate has its role to play, in confirming," he said. But nowhere in the constitution does it say that the Senate gets another shot at a judge in the retention process.

Oh and both Governor Huntsman and Chief Justice Durham agree with me. Yet scarily enough, Buttars has chair the Judiciary Committee for 4 years.

"This is a really bad idea," said Scott Daniels, a former president of the Utah State Bar, former Democratic legislator and former 3rd District judge. "This goes in the wrong direction. We want to keep judges away from political pressure, not closer to it."
Besides any constitutional concerns, "from a practical matter you would not get very qualified people to even apply to be a judge."

Who wants to be a judge at the whim of a couple idiots on Salt Lake’s Capitol Hill? I sure wouldn't and neither would most attorneys. Federal judges can't be removed so easily. "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 1. Good behavior basically means criminal activity or insanity, I can only think of one federal judge that has been impeached, John Pickering in 1804, and that was because he had gone insane. Buttars is just trying to do his best Dobson impersonation. Leave the demagoguery to professionals Chris.

CW, meet reality

Before I begin, let me just say that I really respect Dan Jones. His polling in Utah is top notch and the only one I really trust. In fact, I almost considered going to this event at the UCC where he talked about why Utah is so red.

And maybe the reporter from the Deseret News was an idiot and just focused on the CW stuff, that's very possible. But I must dispell several MSM lines of CW here.

1. "Democrats have no clear policy on immigration."

Yes they do. They have passed several bills in the senate immigration. And McCain has signed on to this sensible solution. It is the GOP that is divided. A good chunk of them support the Sensenbrenner lock-em-up type legislation, others support the Senate Democrats position. I will say this over and over again in this piece, but Democrats don't control anything in DC. This makes it very hard to pass bills and without the high level of staff it is hard to further articulate your positions, yet Democrats have a bill that would get support from the majority of Americans but the House won't take it up. Even President Bush would sign this bill.


2. failure to articulate an exit strategy in Iraq


This is similar to the above point, but slightly closer to the mark. There are still a few Democrats that debate about when we should pull troops out of Iraq, and some of the Joe Lieberman camp that are still refusing to admit their mistake in cheerleading the war, but Lieberman and his followers' days in electoral politics are numbered (negatively). Democrats have united on Iraq for the most part. We all agree that it is going terribly right now, and we need to change the situation by strategically redeploying troops elsewhere. Both those who supported the war, like Joe Biden, and those who opposed the war, like Nancy Pelosi, signed on to this letter.

Unlike the immigration issue, Democrats have yet to issue a hard, definative policy on Iraq. It is however, a question of when, not whether we should get out of there. Some say the end of the year, some say another Friedman (AKA six months) after that. Iraq is an even more difficult policy issue than immigration. However, it was entirely preventable had we not elected to wage this unnecessary war. The situation has gotten increasingly worse as the President and his supporters have gotten increasingly obstinant in their support of this ill-fated adventure. And again, as the minority out of power party, we don't have to and shouldn't be expected to issue a white paper on what to do. Even if we did and took over Congress on that white paper (which only in punditland happens), we couldn't impliment it until 2008, because Bush is the Commander in Chief. We have a general policy that Americans can understand (and 55% of them support), and that is plenty.


3. Failure to pass the minimum wage bill


I don't know if Jones actually read the bill, but the GOP attached a poison bill amendment to further cut taxes for America's Paris Hiltons. Sure, GOP leaders can claim they voted for the wage hike and that their opponents voted against it, but Democrats have a great new line on the Estate Tax: Paris Hilton tax. And I think your average voter knows who supports increasing the wage and who doesn't. In fact, in several states across the country, there are ballot initiatives supported by Democrats and their union allies because the federal government won't raise the minimum wage.


4. "Utah wasn't always so red"


This is the one of the stupidest comments in the whole piece, and I assume Mr. Jones was misunderstood by the reporter. Red state does not mean Republican, it means conservative. The article claimed that Utah used to support Democrats for a long time. But let's remember that prior to the 1930s, the Democrats were a pretty conservative party, and it was still pretty conservative until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Moreover, the Republican Party was founded on its zeal to eliminate "the twin barbarisms of our time" namely slavery and polygamy.

The GOP was filled with such hatred towards Mormons that is not surprising that Utah was a one party Democratic state for a long time. But remember, the last Democrat to carry Utah was in 1964 with LBJ's huge sweep.

I would say that the parties have changed overtime, and Utah really hasn't. It has always been a pretty conservative place, opposed to gay marriage, abortion, etc. And as the Democratic party grew to support such things on a national level, so too did the party's prospects wither in the Beehive state.


5. The inability of the state's Democrats and independents "to relate with a Democrat at the national level."


I don't think we Utah Democrats need to relate to the national party. Kansas, Arizona, Wyoming, New Mexico, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Virginia (along with probably Colorado, Ohio, Alaska, and Kentucky in the up coming elections) all are states with a majority of Republicans in their delegations, which went for Bush in varying degrees in 2004 and most in 2000, yet have strong Democratic parties and popular Democratic governors.

These folks often distinguish themselves from the national party on abortion, or gay rights, or guns, etc. but they do just fine on a state level.

So why does the modern Democratic Party fair so poorly in Utah?


Many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "feel that Democrat policies are counter to church positions."


And not just that it is counter, but that Democrats are somehow immoral and untrustworthy because of these positions.

The cultural link between the GOP and the LDS church is so strong that many members who are Democrats feel ashamed to admit it or talk about their feelings personally. Culturally, they are pressured to follow along with the "dogma" that Republicans are virtuous and righteous while Democrats are downright evil. "You don't have to be LDS to win in Utah," said Jones. "You've got two chances: slim and none. But you've got a chance."

This is despite the fact that the official position of the church is that both parties have elements that fit the teachings of the LDS faith. Democrats have their social justice issues (poverty, health care, etc.) and Republicans have their culture war issues (gays, abortion, sex).

As I have said before, many a good Mormon was also a good member of the Democratic Party. Democrats also don't require its members to agree with everything in the platform. LDS Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid is pro-Life. Tenn. Rep. Lincoln Davis is anti-gay rights. Senate Candidate Bob Casey is so pro-Life that his dad is the Casey in last landmark abortion case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Before I ramble off too much on this well-trodden ground, let me address another lame CW myth: "I promise you, he'll gain 5 percentage points, five," Jones said of Bush's popularity after the foiled London plot.

Let's look at the polls, shall we?

The arrests in Britain have not helped President Bush's popularity so far, the CBS poll finds. His job approval remains exactly at 36 percent, where it was a month ago. Even the president's rating for handling terrorism – his strongest suit – remains unchanged at 51 percent.

So much for that five point bump? The only other poll I have seen that was conducted on the issue had Bush at 38 percent, up a whole 3 points from the last Newsweek poll.

Oh and Dan? Three points in a month is within the margin of error. Shall I explain that concept to you as well?

Articles that leave out the real story

In the Salt Lake Tribune today, we get this enigmatic headline: "Leavitt makes surprise SUU visit"

Gee, why would Former Governor Leavitt unexpectedly show up at Southern Utah University?



Could it be he needed to take care of his laundry?

Leavitt pretended to be there about "he need for Americans to get fit and stay fit." Yet when questions returned to his sham charity, he refused to talk to reporters. "I'm not doing interviews," he said. "I'm on vacation."

Meanwhile, the Washington Post that other local paper, decides to mention a trival bit of news for their article on Leavitt:

The Internal Revenue Service plans to audit a foundation that channeled tax-deductible donations from the Leavitt family through Southern Utah University back to the Leavitts in the form of student rent for family-owned student housing,

Why leave this key item in the story? Apparantly this news was broken by the Trib itself. So why not connect the dots or raise the issue? Mark my words, Leavitt may have to resign for "personal reasons" in a few months. I am no tax expert, but this looks pretty nefarious. Finally something is sticking to Governor Teflon, even if he is now Secretary of HHS.

Is there a non-corrupt/crony Republican in power in Washington these days? Please name one for me, because I can't think of one off the top of my head.

quote of the day

Just back from filing her candidacy credit: Reuters

Porn Star Mary Carey, who ran in 2003's recall election as a Republican, is once again going to run as a Republican against Arnold for Califiornia's Governorship.

Her campaign slogan: "Finally, a politician you want to be screwed by"

Other gems:

"I think I'm more serious now," Carey said as she arrived at a Los Angeles County elections office to launch her 2006 gubernatorial campaign. "As you can see I'm dressed more seriously. I've got brown in my hair because brunettes are taken more seriously."

She also decided to lose weight and get new implants. Her core constituency, horn-dog young men.

She promised to give up on alcohol (at least until November) and her movie career like Arnold "Although my movies only take a day or two to shoot, so I could probably do them on weekends," she said.

McKinney's conspiracy theory redux

ex-Rep. Cynthia McKinney lost (again) a primary to a mainstream Democrat. And just like in 2002, she is blaming Republicans and Diebold for her loss, not her record of insanity.

“We aren’t going to tolerate any more stolen elections,” Ms. McKinney said in her concession speech, though crossover voting is legal in Georgia.
[...]
Under Georgia’s system, voters may choose either a Republican or a Democratic ballot in the primary election. If there is a runoff, primary voters must stick with the party they originally selected, but voters who did not vote in the primary are free to vote for either party.

Even if GOPers voted 100% for her opponent, that still wouldn't have been enough to unseat her by the 13 points she lost by. This too, is like 2002. I guess we should be thankful that her and her father aren't blaming the Jews for this one as well...although they tried to insinuate that all of ex. County Commissioner/Congressman-elect Hank Johnson's money was coming from Jews.

I am glad that Tuesday night was a massacre night for incumbents. Joe, Cynthia and endangered species sane GOPer Tim Schwartz (who was targeted by Club for Growth much more than MoveOn.org/DFA/DailyKos/MyDD targeted Lieberman) all went down hard. All deserved it for being out of touch with their constituents. Joe and Tim's constituents wanted a partisan, not a faux-compromiser. Cynthia's wanted a non-embarressing member of congress.

In other news, I don't buy this latest "thwarted Al Qaeda attack." Maybe all the manipulation and abuse of intelligence, the scaremongering, and lies of the Bush Administration has jaded me so that when their really is a wolf, I don't believe it. But why does Al Qaeda only threaten the U.S. at the end of the summer/early fall of even numbered years, just when the GOP looks like they might lose an election?

How many times last year was there a terror alert...that's right zero. And don't tell me the British were behind it, weren't they the stodges behind the "yellow cake?" Tony Blair is really the UK's version of Joe Lieberman. He used to be a respectable Third Way New Labour/New Democrat, but now he thinks being strong on security is supporting Bush's foreign policy without question or hesitation. The British public might soon can Blair like CT voters nixed Lieberman.

And I suspect that Lieberman will be crushed in November. He will lose a significant chunck of his primary supporters and overtime the rest of CT voters will grow weary of selfish Joe. This all started in 2000 when he refused to just run for VP, such that had Gore actually been inaugurated, now-convicted felon then GOP Governor would have picked CT's senator to replace Joe. It all went down hill from there. People say Joe was just following Gore's terrible adivsors strategy about being soft on Cheney. But once Joe realized (and he should have) that Cheney was trying to be CEO grampa and not the truely evil man he is, he should have ditched the script and gone for the juggular. And Lieberman shouldn't have nixed Gore's decision making on the military ballots during the recount. And on and on I could go. But we all know how it ended: with Karl Rove calling Joe Lieberman after losing his primary, and Joe accepting the call. Joe's people claim Karl never offered consultants/staff/money etc. But Karl's people say otherwise...and this point, I trust Karl on his political strategem. It is not in his interests to make Joe look bad.

A tale of two speeches

Thanks to CSPAN (the internets were overloaded with Joementum's hackers), I was able to keep abreast of the numbers of the Connecticut Senate Primary as they trickled in. A close, tough loss for Lieberman, and a hell of a game plan by the Lamont people.

Lieberman would have won had he not decided to run Indy should he lose, and had he quesnot scaled back on his GOTV. Also, he totally blew off Bridgeport, where DLC ally Gub. candidate Dan Malloy was mayor, and that too could have been the 4 points he needed. It was a high turnout primary and the message was pretty clear: Democrats are tired of Joe.

But I also got to watch Joe and Ned's speeches via C-SPAN. Joe's was very good under the circumstances of losing and demanding a Mulligan. It was obviously drafted way in advance, so Joe was expecting to lose. The theme will be: Washington is too partisan, and even though I have been a senator for 18 years while it got partisan and was unable to stop it, send me back so I can fix it as an "Independant Democrat." It was a load of hogwash, but it was as good a theme as he could come up with.

Ned's speech, by contrast was terrible. First he started out with talking point lines from some of the many rallies he must have been going to the last couple of days. Then he settled down, stopped shouting into the microphone and thanked a couple people. Then he remembered the one scripted bit, a nice classy talk about Joe. He thanked Lieberman for his service and hoped that Joe would come to his senses in a few days and give up on his grudge match. This should have come first. I also liked his tale about CA Rep. Maxine Waters. Revs. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton (and Randy Jackson from American Idol's stunt double) stood in the back akwardly, giving those fist high-fives to people like Tom Swain. Al Sharpton is such a tag-a-long. Oh well. Today is the big CT-Dem unity rally, I am looking forward to the awkwardness when they mention or are asked about Joe.

Also, Joe's line that it is "half-time and Lamont is up" reminded me of Joe's "three way tie for Third Place" in 2004. It was just as laughably pathetic. I wonder if people will ask for their money back. That is also what the Netroots should do, call Democrats who gave big to Joe to a) not give him any more and b) ask for a refund.

The last time a sitting senator lost in a primary was 2002, when Bob Smith was ousted by the establishment for being too crazy, running briefly as an indy for president, and having no chance against then NH Gov. Jeanne Shaheen. This one was totally opposite. I didn't give any money to Ned, and I don't plan on doing so now either. The man has hundreds of millions of dollars. But I congratulate my friends in the blogosphere who worked long and hard for this, enjoy it.

Then go examine and challenge those signatures, strip him of his committees, revoke his endorsements, dry up his money, and make him the laughing stock of DC that he deserves to be.

those other primaries

Despite the media coverage, there are other primaries to watch today besides Joe v. Ned...but it sure has been the most fun. I was hoping McKinney would do something stupid to spark more interest, but this time they learned to shut up. But she will probabbly still lose to Hank Johnson, whom I have endorsed. UPDATE: I spoke too soon; McKinney is blaming the police, Diebold

Also the CO-07 congressional race seems to have died down, with DLCer Ed Perlmutter pulling away from the ex-governor's daughter Peggy Lamm.

Michigan has a house race that is the opposite of CT, a hard right winger supported by the Club for Growth challenging a moderate incumbent GOPer. This is a 54% Bush district...but maybe if the nutjob wins, the Democrat can cut into that.

The most interesting number out of the Washington Post poll for me was the extremely low approval number people gave their own congress(wom)man--55%. Usually, people hate congress, but love their congresscritter and then are some how surprised that congress doesn't change. This time, there is a pretty strong anti-incumbent mood in the country, the 55% is the lowest since (you guessed it) 1994. So maybe lots of congress critters will be working on K street this fall. The fact that a plurality, 49 to 34, think Democrats will do a better job on the war on terrorism (and a solid majority think Democrats will do a better job on Iraq) is also key. Seems like people are ready for a change.

To me this is 1992 all over again. The Dems had their chance to change (after all, lots of incumbents lost in 1992) but they didn't change enough, plus they were pissed at Clinton, and that is why 1994 happened. So if the GOP survives 2006 with majorities and doesn't change their ways dramatically, 2008 will be a big year for Democrats. Likewise, if Democrats get control of congress and go back to their late 80s early 90s ways, 2008 will be a year of reckoning for them as well.

Gregerson is an idiot

In a jailhouse interview with the media, he claimed that "It wasn't a full-fledged confession," to the FBI. "I told them the basics, and they filled in the gaps and exaggerated the details. I don't think what I said will hurt my case."

Um yeah it will because what you said helped them get a warrant and then they found A DEAD GIRL IN TUPPERWARE IN YOUR BASEMENT. The also did an autopsy and found that you had had sex with her AFTER SHE WAS DEAD. So unless you can through out the confession, and/or contest the warrant, and/or cast doubt on the autopsy, you might be executed because of your confession, so I think that might have hurt your case.

Gregerson decided also to nip the insanity defense in the bud, saying "I was sane when this happened." Also he is appearantly really bad at PR, and is prejudicing himself against the jury:

Gregerson was calm during the interview, according to KSL-TV, and at several points had a "perpetual grin" on his face. He denied reports that he helped look for Destiny during the massive community searches or attending candlelight vigils for the girl.
"When I saw that on the news I laughed because it wasn't true," the television station quoted him as saying.

He also decided it was a good idea to introduce the porno defense:

When asked why he did it, Gregerson reportedly said: "I really want to answer that, but my lawyer is preventing me from doing that right now in light of the case. I can tell you this: I have now become a strong advocate against pornography."
When pressed, Gregerson told KSL-TV that he was "addicted to pornography at one point . . . it was ruining my life and affecting my relationship with my wife."

Brilliant stuff. I hope this moron's lawyer is smart enough to be able to talk Gregerson into shutting up and taking a guilty plea. That's his best shot.

Hillary, stay in the senate

Today the Boston Herald reported a series of Dick Bennett (who rungs those ARG polls in NH) focus groups of 410 Democratic primary voters in NH had really negative feelings about the junior senator from New York.

“Lying b**** . . . shrew . . . Machiavellian . . . evil, power-mad witch . . . the ultimate self-serving politician.”
[...]
Hillary’s growing brain trust in the party’s upper reaches already knows she has high “negatives” among ordinary Democrats. They think she can win those voters over with the right strategy and message.
But they should get out of D.C., New York and L.A. more often, and visit grassroots members.
Because we’re not talking about “soft” negatives like, say, “out of touch” or “arrogant.”
We’re talking: “Criminal . . . megalomaniac . . . fraud . . . dangerous . . . devil incarnate . . . satanic . . . power freak.”
Satanic.
And: “Political wh***.”

"Dick Bennett has been polling New Hampshire voters for 30 years. And he’s never seen anything like it." I have said this for a long time, that Hillary's lead in these super early polls is name recognition only and that her support amoung primary voters in at least the early states is pretty soft. Still, "55 percent of ARG’s sample was either neutral or positive about Sen. Clinton. Thirty-two percent currently say they plan to vote for her in the primary." In a multi-person race, that is still a pretty big lead. I think that is Kerry or Dean numbers in 2004 New Hampshire. And really, Democrats can't ignore the Granite State. It was the lone 2000 Bush state to swing to Kerry. Bottom line: "It’s hard to see any Democrat winning the White House without carrying the state in the presidential election. And it’s hard, right now, to see Hillary carrying the state."

The grassroots is really not behind Hillary, and she already has enough battles to face against the GOP machine. Also, I would really like it if we didn't have a Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton line of succession. We are a Democracy, and no matter how great the Clinton brand is, I would like to a Clark or a Warner give it a shot.